Krag Collectors Association Forum

Parashooter "The front counterbore is shallow because it is in the leaf spring, not the sight base - if deeper it would leave little or no thickness below the screw head."
That explains a lot. Never have seen one of these in person. I think the manual drawing adds to the confusion. It looks like the spring needs to be rotated and looking at Boomer's photo the spring is dove tailed and slides into the base from the front?
They may have had plus or minus .015" on the head thickness tolerance as no problem if it is thicker.

Maybe the thicker head is to help the one doing the assembly to keep them separate? Putting the short screw up front may have damaged the barrel and or screw, if it even engages.


Looked at Parashooter's drawings again, they are from 2 different pages correct? The front of the sight is on the left and the front of spring is on the right? If so a lot less confusing.

Lets beat this dead horse again...

Poyer states that the 1896 carbine base was reduced to 0.520 inch at the front to conform to the ballistics of the 22-inch barrel.

I'm guessing the taller screw enabled it's use for both the 1896 rifle (which sat higher) and carbine (which sat lower) rear sights.

Local Boy, did the height of the spring above the barrel change?

ButlersRangers, would the elevated rear screw on the prototype make a pinch point? If so a good reason to recess and make a thin head on the rear.

On the Springfield Armory prototype Krag, the rear of the sight-base appears to clamp a flange on the fitting attached to the front of the hand-guard. That may explain the need for a more robust rear-screw.

That tall rear screw-head on the prototype does not interfere with the 'hump' on the sight-leaf. But, if the leaf is put 'up' in the vertical position, pinching of a thumb might occur.

A flush rear screw-head makes sense on the form finally adopted. It would eliminate a potential dangerous edge.

. . . Looked at Parashooter's drawings again, they are from 2 different pages correct? The front of the sight is on the left and the front of spring is on the right? . . .
Yes, pages 27 and 28 - note they are figures 89 and 90.
Yes, fore and aft reversed between the two figures.
See Boomer's photo for a good end view of the spring and base showing relative thickness. http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?action=downloadfile;file=92Krag%5FSight2%2EJPG

. . . Poyer states that the 1896 carbine base was reduced to 0.520 inch at the front to conform to the ballistics of the 22-inch barrel.

I'm guessing the taller screw enabled it's use for both the 1896 rifle (which sat higher) and carbine (which sat lower) rear sights.
Not the base proper, but its ramp is lower on the carbine - not for ballistics, but rather because of shorter sight radius.

Parashooter you are correct sir! Thank you for the explanation and illustrations!!!

After my last posting I took a look at my 1896 rifle and carbine sights and realized my error.

Just too busy getting the yard ready for winter before I could post my mistake. :-[

Here's some side-by-side pics.

Interesting note... The front of the carbine sight measured 0.23 of an inch while the front of the rifle sight measured 0.20 of an inch.

Great information about the rear sight!! Thanks to all of you.

Is there any way to determine if the cleaning rod in this rifle is an original or a repop? I have not found markings of any kind on this rod.

There was an earlier post where dimensions for a Krag (I believe from an 1894 manual which I haven't yet gotten a copy of) were compared to an Argentine cleaning rod. I've taken the 'Krag' measurements from that post, added a column that has measurements Joe Poyer has in his book, and a 3rd column with measurements from the cleaning rod I have.


Krag Poyer's Book This One

Total Length 29 5/8 29.5 / 29.25 25 9/16
Rod Diameter 0.196 .2" -> .189 .199 - .201*
Head Diameter 0.259 .267 .266 - .268*
Head Length 1.165 .95 .95 to start of taper
Head Slot Length 0.430 .410 .430
Head Slot Width 0.120 .110 .110
Thread Rebate 0.181 .179 .175
Thread 24TPI 26TPI 24TPI

* I found slight variations in the diameter along the length of the rod (or head) due to differences in corrosion, 'patina', etc.

Any thoughts on whether this is original or not?

Close-Up and clear photos of the rod 'head', (especially, where the color changes), and of the threads, may beget feedback and opinions.

Close-Up and clear photos of the rod 'head', (especially, where the color changes), and of the threads, may beget feedback and opinions.

I don't know what I was thinking (or not thinking) with that one. I'm surprised I forgot to take a closeup of something this easy to get to. Let me know if you want some additional photos.